Nothing wrong with a half-baked solution. Something can have definite value even if it's not "complete". But without the ability to evolve the thing and change APIs under a different version number, it's too risky to release in such a state.
This isn't about Java-the-language either, it's about Java-the-platform; getting the module system in place would benefit everybody. Right now it's looking very much as though Java 8 is only including features that already exist in other JVM languages. This is a poor decision even on pure economic terms from Oracle's perspective; surely they'd have more to gain by offering benefits over and above C#, Python, Haskell, etc. instead of trying to catch up with Scala & co. They're no less likely to sell support licences for GC tuning or WebLogic just because someone switches to a different language that can run in WebLogic and still has GC concerns. The JDBC client for the Oracle DB is still used in the exact same way from Clojure. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, but this is just another way in which they've snubbed the community. On 20 July 2012 20:22, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]>wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:34:25 +0200, phil swenson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > very flawed statistics (tiobe). >> >> If you want to know where the mindshare of new stuff is, take a look at >> github. >> > > Tiobe is surely flawed, but github? I don't know any large industry which > is placing its sources under a private github repo. I presume we have to > clarify what we mean with industry. > > > basically, you are claiming that "new technology" is irrelevant. >> > > This is a wild generalization of my thinking. I'm saying that the new > languages are, up to now, scarcely relevant or irrelevant. "Relevance" for > me is the % of money. The discussion was related on the industry alleged to > leave Java because it's too old, with the postponing of jigsaw making the > problem worse. My point is that I'm upset with jigsaw delays because it's > jeopardizing the chances Java clients defend or enlarge a bit their market > share, but for what concerns the areas where Java is currently strong it > won't make a big difference because, as others said, server-side people > needing componentization can use OSGi and a few dozens of megabytes more in > the runtime are not a problem. > > Back to the technical point, I cited Maven and somebody put a question. I > have to disagree with Kirk's position about it's better a delay that a > half-baked solution. It largely depends on the context. If the good > solution arrives when it's useless, I prefer a half-baked solution. Maven > dependencies provide a mechanism for defining components and relationships > which is far from being perfect, but it is something that has been used for > years, so we know it pretty well. It doesn't deal with runtime, but a > simple mechanism for it can be borrowed from other systems. So, while a > team is working on a full-fledged jigsaw for 2015, another team could have > been working on an intermediate solution that should have been ready in > 2013. And looking back, the alternate solution should have been worked > about since the very beginning, so perhaps we could have had it by 2011, > JDK 7. Some said that the community could have contributed instead of > whining and well, this is what I often say for many other things, so I > can't really disagree. But I fear that working inside the core of the JVM > is beyond the capabilities of the community. > > Of course, it all depends on which are the actual technical problems of > jigsaw and a big trouble of this discussion is that we're not dealing with > them. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
